Are you asking, on a Buddhist forum, if there are some magical chants or rituals you can do, that the Buddha taught, which will help you get the girl? This is not what the Buddha taught. He did teach how to behave ethically within a relationship and how to achieve mundane happiness in the here and now. But as for anything magical, this was not in the Buddha's purview.

sorry,

adosa

"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183

Basically, you are attached to this person. You may be deluded into thinking otherwise, but so long as you have feelings and ideas about this person - that in your mind seperate them out from everyone else as being significant and special to you, then you are attached to them.

Now, there is nothing wrong per se about being attached and in love with someone, but this love you feel is suffering - it may not be apparent right now, but as soon as the conditions for your love of this person cease to be met, you will suffer, as soon as you are parted from this person you will suffer and so on. So long as you are aware of this then go head, be in love, but try to see it for what it is because being deluded about things will make it worse for the both of you when it inevitably encounters change.

The best advice I can give is to be kind and understanding towards that person, nothing is going to make this last forever - you should not think of it in these terms. You say you want to spend the rest of your lifetimes with them... I think you're mad you'll be sick of them before the end of this life! Why would want that to continue in the next life?

Take this feeling for what it really is, and while it lasts be good to that person, do not see them as something belonging to you and don't expect anything from them, and don't expect things to last forever - you should be ok if you understand that.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

but seriously, you love a girl who doesn't love you, but you think it would help her to love you, and you want advice about this like you're in a relationship?

maybe you should just wait and see what happens? she could find you totally appalling, you never know. don't set yourself up for heartbreak and remember she is a person not some thing that needs to love you or needs you to fix her.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Please don't think that you are being attacked or persecuted, the intentions of the people on this forum is to help you to see things clearly. What gives them the right to claim they know something you don't know about your own situation? Fair question. It is because a lot of people on this forum have been practicing the Noble Eightfold Path for a long long time (some perhaps for many lifetimes), watching their own minds very closely and discerning between wholesome states and unwholesome states, cultivating the skilful and abandoning the unskilful. It is because of this thorough understanding of the nature of their own minds that they can see these same skilful, unskilful, wholesome and unwholesome ways of thinking expressed in the speech and actions of others. They might not be reading your mind directly, but what you are saying reveals a great deal about how you think.

It is the very nature of deluded states of mind that they are very difficult for the person under their influence to see them. It is a great help to have friends on The Path to help point out these delusions until we become skilful enough to recognize them ourselves. In the Sedaka Sutta The Buddha used the simile of two acrobats who both protect themselves and each other. If you have Faith in The Buddha, The Dhamma and The Sangha then please try to be humble enough to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, others might have put in the time and effort to practice the Buddha's teaching to understand the processes of mental defilements by watching themselves and can therefore help others who are going through the same things they have.

I wish you all the best on The Path, it takes a lot of courage and humility to walk this Path. Are you up to the challenge?

With Metta,

Guy

Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

kayy wrote:I personally don't think that being in a relationship is contradictory to Dharma practice, even when you've reached advanced levels of meditation, practice and awakening.

If that were the case, it would be best to try to convince everyone in the world to aim towards monkhood, thus making extinct the human race.

Some progress on the Path is certainly possible (even the fruits of Stream-Entry and Once-Returning) while in a relationship, but if we want to make an end of suffering and rebirth in this lifetime then we should avoid getting involved. Not everyone wants to end suffering and rebirth in this lifetime, therefore you don't have to worry about everyone in the world becoming a Bhikkhu or a Bhikkhuni.

kayy wrote:Ignoring, suppressing or trying to remove desire does not work.

I agree that ignoring sensual desire won't solve the problem, but once we see (with Right Mindfulness) that there is sensual desire in our mind then we can work at abandoning it through Right Effort.

With Metta,

Guy

Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

kayy wrote:I personally don't think that being in a relationship is contradictory to Dharma practice, even when you've reached advanced levels of meditation, practice and awakening.

If that were the case, it would be best to try to convince everyone in the world to aim towards monkhood, thus making extinct the human race.

Some progress on the Path is certainly possible (even the fruits of Stream-Entry and Once-Returning) while in a relationship, but if we want to make an end of suffering and rebirth in this lifetime then we should avoid getting involved. Not everyone wants to end suffering and rebirth in this lifetime, therefore you don't have to worry about everyone in the world becoming a Bhikkhu or a Bhikkhuni.

kayy wrote:Ignoring, suppressing or trying to remove desire does not work.

I agree that ignoring sensual desire won't solve the problem, but once we see (with Right Mindfulness) that there is sensual desire in our mind then we can work at abandoning it through Right Effort.

With Metta,

Guy

Hi guy

Thanks for your reply. Re: stream entrants and so on... is this your opinion / something you read somewhere, or is it something you really, truly know?

If, in order to end suffering and 'rebirth' (that is assuming one believes in rebirth, which I don't), one has to renounce the world, human society, human bonds, reproduction and ultimately the continuation of the species, I'm out!

I instinctively feel as though there is a 'middle way' in which one can be fully involved with life in society, in relationships and in the world, yet fully awake. Otherwise I don't see the point.

Guy - do you mean to say that Stephen Batchelor, Martin Aylward, Joseph Goldstein, Sharon Salzberg, Jack Kornfield and all the other lay Buddhist teachers, famous or otherwise, who currently are or have previously been in relationships, are not committed to ending suffering in this lifetime?

kayy wrote:If, in order to end suffering and 'rebirth' (that is assuming one believes in rebirth, which I don't), one has to renounce the world, human society, human bonds, reproduction and ultimately the continuation of the species, I'm out!

It is really admirable that you are treasuring what you consider good. I think nobody could argue against this wholesome intention. But on this long path of development many of us came to realize that our understanding of what is "good" is subject to change, as our discernment and our state of mind develops with the practice.

As a personal example, in most of my life I praised intimate relations, and I thought that making a girl happy with intimate love is a great thing to do. But when I actually got some nice meditation experience, and I thought about the same thing with that energetic and happy mind, I had to realize that intimacy is deeply inferior to the experience that I am just having: I have felt repulsed by the thought of sex. It became clear that intimacy feels good purely because we are in a state of deep deprivation, a state of deep hunger, a state of deep discontentment. Just like as the Magandiya Sutta magnificently describes:

Magandiya Sutta wrote:"Magandiya, suppose that there was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. His friends, companions, & relatives would take him to a doctor. The doctor would concoct medicine for him, and thanks to the medicine he would be cured of his leprosy: well & happy, free, master of himself, going wherever he liked. Then suppose two strong men, having grabbed him with their arms, were to drag him to a pit of glowing embers. What do you think? Wouldn't he twist his body this way & that?"

"Yes, master Gotama. Why is that? The fire is painful to the touch, very hot & scorching."

"Now what do you think, Magandiya? Is the fire painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, only now, or was it also that way before?"

"Both now & before is it painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, master Gotama. It's just that when the man was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired, which was why, even though the fire was actually painful to the touch, he had the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'"

"In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'

And then I considered the interest of the partner: Is it really compassionate to treat another being with intimacy, instead of teaching her to experience that much higher satisfaction? I had to realize that there is a moral problem, because with intimacy I would inevitably mislead that other being about the priorities of life, maintaining and feeding her illusions about what is suffering and what is happiness.

As for friendliness, helping and teaching, they are universal merits, but if a relationship consists purely of them, then the relationship itself is entirely superfluous, isn't it?

Lastly, to translate this story from the instance to the dynamics: There is only one true desire in every mind, and that is to be satisfied. Beings identify satisfaction with fulfilled concerns, but if satisfaction arises directly due to the dhammic path, concerns fall away. Relationships, society, survival of humankind... it is all the same. What does this mean? It means: buckle your seatbelt Dorothy, because Kansas is going bye-bye.

Anyway, this was just my honest reflection on the subject. Apologies for any silliness, and I wish you much happiness, whatever path you go.

"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline there is but one taste — the taste of freedom"

Thanks for your reply. Re: stream entrants and so on... is this your opinion / something you read somewhere, or is it something you really, truly know?

The Suttas: There are many instances of lay people who were Stream-Entrants or Once-Returners, even a few Non-Returners. In the case of the lay people who are Non-Returners, they are invariably celibate since they have totally, completely, irreversibly removed the fetter of sensual desire.

My personal opinion: If someone sees the benefit in sense restraint (not just sexual, but all forms of sensuality) and wants to become a monastic or even a celibate lay person and put a large focus in their life on seclusion, sense restraint, moderation in eating, wakefulness and meditation I would encourage them to do so. If someone thinks that they can live a skilful and wholesome life practicing in the household environment with a partner then I encourage them to do so.

If, in order to end suffering and 'rebirth' (that is assuming one believes in rebirth, which I don't), one has to renounce the world, human society, human bonds, reproduction and ultimately the continuation of the species, I'm out!

Advances in society, sexual relationships, perpetuation of the species are all worldly goals. I am not saying that these things are bad or unimportant, in fact I can see that these things can be pursued with quite good intentions and have positive outcomes. But they are all limited in their potential for good. Relationships are Anicca (impermanent, unstable, insecure), societies are Anicca, even the human race's existence on Earth is Anicca, even the entire universe is Anicca.

Not really related to the original topic, so please reply to me in PM or on the "Great Rebirth Debate": Is it that you have rejected rebirth as impossible? Or are you open to either possibility ie. you neither accept it nor reject it?

I instinctively feel as though there is a 'middle way' in which one can be fully involved with life in society, in relationships and in the world, yet fully awake. Otherwise I don't see the point.

I don't see the life of a householder as a 'halfway house'.

When the Buddha spoke of the Middle Way He was talking about the Path between indulging in sensual pleasures on the one hand and self-torture on the other hand. For some people this means refraining from sexual misconduct (ie. not cheating on their partner, not sleeping with someone who has a partner, etc) but other people want to develop this further and refrain from all sexual activity (even the activity of speech or mind in regard to sexual topics). While it is possible to make advances in a household environment (as is evident in the Suttas) it seems that many monastics have mentioned that from their experience it is much more conducive to the Goal (Nibbana) living as a Bhikkhu or a Bhikkhuni.

With Metta,

Guy

Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

kayy wrote:If, in order to end suffering and 'rebirth' (that is assuming one believes in rebirth, which I don't), one has to renounce the world, human society, human bonds, reproduction and ultimately the continuation of the species, I'm out!

Specific to "the world" and all that entails... see the following sutta.

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

Renunciation isn't an active rejection of these things you mention... it is a mode of behaviour which is reflective of the knowledge that all phenomena are not-self and impermanent. Given their not-self-ness and impermanence, clinging to and attaching to "the world" (note the Buddha's definition above) is bound to lead to suffering, because what we desperately cling to is ephemeral, transient and bound to change and be other than how we perceive it, or wish for it to be.